Dr. Krauthammer got it right.

Each month the Vatican publishes the Pope’s special prayer intentions. Usually both a “general” and “mission” intention are provided.

For August, Benedict’s general prayer intention is: “That orphans may not lack the care necessary for their human and Christian formation.”

While I understand the motivation behind Benedict’s intention (probably actually written by some low-level curial Vaticrat), I presume that he would want even non-Christian orphans to be cared for and loved.

For this intention to be anything more than a “noisy gong,” we must look to the ways in which societies the world over concretely care for those countless children who, for whatever reason, no longer have their natural parents. While some children who lose their parents are lucky enough to be cared for aunts and uncles, grandparents or even adult siblings, it is adoptive and foster parents who most often provide the care that the orphan so desparately needs. Given this, one would think that the Church would do all it could to support these folks who simply want to love and care for a child to whom life has dealt such a harsh blow.

Qualified adoptive and foster parents — men and women, young and old, married and single, straight and gay — should all be embraced by societies for their willingness to provide for the truly weakest among us.

Even as we join our voice with Benedict’s for his August prayer intention, let us also pray for Benedict, Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley, and other Church leaders who would do violence to children by not allowing them to be cared for by loving gay men and women seeking to put their own faith into practice!

My best friend is Episcopalian. He’s also gay. Last night I was privileged to accompany him to a meeting at his church to hear the parish rector speak about the Episcopal Church’s recent General Convention in Columbus. The rector — male, heterosexual, and African American — had served as a deputy at the convention, which is held every three years.

In addition to electing a woman as presiding bishop (i.e primate) of the Episcopal Church in America, the convention also voted on resolutions in response to the Windsor Report of the worldwide Anglican Communion. That report had asked the Americans to “repent” from their action in 2003 of assenting to the episcopal consecration of an openly gay and partnered priest, Canon V. Gene Robinson. As the rector pointed out, the convention deputies chose not to express “repentance” for the 2003 action, as this would indicate that they now believe what they did then was wrong. Nonethelss, out of a desires to hear the voices of their fellow Anglicans around the globe, to be respectful of their wishes, and to remain in dialogue over difficult issues, the convention deputies approved a resolution expressing their “regret” for the pain their 2003 action has caused.

Now, however, it seems that some Anglicans both around the world and even closer to home aren’t willing to accept this statement of regret and continue the dialogue with their co-religionists. Led by the power-hungry and fundamentalist Peter Akinola, Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, these folks sadly are not willing to give to others even a small measure of what they had so strongly demanded for themselves.

It is sad that the prayer of Jesus himself (see John 17:8-26) calling for unity among his followers seems so far from the minds and actions of some shepherds entrusted with pastoral care for a part of God’s flock.

Brigham Young University professor Jeffrey Nielsen will lose his job because he chose to express an opinion that questions official Mormon support for the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment.”

Perhaps the leaders of BYU should actually read the Constitution they support amending. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech might come as a surprise to those whose own views are not able to stand even the slightest challenge or questioning.

The logic of American politics and system of jurisprudence will never cease to amaze me!

While 15 year old girls in Colorado can legally wed, millions of gay men and women are denied this fundamental right not only in Colorado, but in almost every other state in the Union.

The Editor,
The Pilot
2121 Commonwealth Avenue
Brighton, MA 02135-3193

To The Editor:

A recent opinion piece by Dale O’Leary entitled, “Insights on same-sex attraction” purportedly attempted to clarify a “mist of confusion” about the public policy debates regarding same-sex marriage by appealing to what is known scientifically about same-sex attraction. Instead of clarity, however, her words contribute to the confusion by citing as science positions which have received no acceptance within the broader scientific community and by perpetuating prejudicial myths and discarded psychobabble about homosexuality.

Let me address several of O’Leary’s most egregious errors point by point.

1. O’Leary states that claims about the biological nature of same-sex attraction and the fixed nature of one’s same-sex orientation have been “thoroughly discredited.” To support this she writes, “no ‘gay gene’ has been found” and scientific inquiry regarding this has “largely been abandoned.” O’Leary is wrong on all accounts.

First, O’Leary attempts to discredit what is known about same-sex attraction by taking it out of its proper context, namely an understanding of human development and sexual orientation. Both the scientific literature and the experience of individuals (gay and straight) tell us clearly that one’s sexual orientation is a relatively fixed, stable part of one’s personality; it is a “given” about who we are, just as is the color of one’s eyes or whether one is left or right-handed. It is not a “choice” or a “preference,” but rather is one expression along the continuum of orientations that individual human persons experience. While an individual may choose the behavior he/she engages in, one does not choose one’s orientation. Just as no heterosexual man can identify when he “chose to be attracted to women,” no homosexual man can say that he “chose” to be attracted to men. Both might speak of a growing awareness of their sexual feelings and attractions during adolescence, but this would be an awareness of a pre-existing, God-given reality.

A 1999 joint statement from several of the most prestigious professional medical, educational, and mental health societies in the United States (including American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, and National Association of Social Workers, among others) declares “Sexual orientation is one component of a person’s identity … an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person,” (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html).

Second, a simple search of the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database yields almost 2,000 citations when searched for the combined terms “genetics” and “sexual orientation.” One result, for example, is the study by Dr. Qazi Rahman of the University of East London. That 2005 study, “The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation” was published in the journal, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. The publisher’s abstract states: “Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation,” (cf. http://www.uel.ac.uk/news/press_releases/releases/s_or.htm). Clearly the scientific interest in this area of research continues to be strong and promising. To state it has “largely been abandoned” is simply wrong.

2. O’Leary appeals to a study by Dr. Robert Spitzer in support of the view that one can change one’s sexual orientation. O’Leary gives no details of the study, published in the Oct. 2003 edition of the journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior. The study received much press and was widely reviewed within the medical and mental health communities. It was universally and sharply criticized both for its faulty methodology (e.g. participants were all self-selected and there was no randomization or control group involved; interviews were by telephone and not anonymous; there was no objective psychometric assessment of their sexual orientation; there was no assessment of any intervention which purportedly effected the “change” [i.e. no pre-test/post-test]; all participants had been treated by or had contact with a “Christian reparative therapist” [reparative therapy has not only been discredited as ineffective, but also condemned as potentially psychologically harmful]); and its overreaching conclusions. The journal’s own abstract for Spitzer’s study clearly states: “The participants were 200 self-selected individuals … who reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years… Reports of complete change were uncommon,” [emphases added]. Even taken uncritically, this study gives no indication that changing one’s given sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual is either possible or even desired by the vast majority of homosexual persons who are psychologically well-adjusted and for whom their sexual orientation is not problematic.

3. After claiming to demonstrate that individuals with a same-sex sexual orientation are not “born that way,” O’Leary goes on to ask what the cause of same-sex attraction is. She discusses at length a book by Elizabeth Moberly which supposedly “combines the findings of therapists with insights gained through healing ministries.” O’Leary says the book’s “conclusions have been confirmed by subsequent research,” though no such supporting research is identified. As one reads O’Leary’s account of Moberly’s “findings,” one is presented with what comes across as an even worse remake of a bad B-movie. Apparently Moberly trots out the view, long-abandoned in scientific and mental health circles, that homosexuals are homosexuals because they did not have enough “love and acceptance from the same-sex parent” during childhood. The myths of the “absent father” and the “cold, distant mother” are apparently to blame. (It is noteworthy that Moberly has no formal training in psychology, yet at one time worked as Director of Psychosexual Education and Therapy for the fundamentalist group, BCM [Bible Centered Ministries] International.)

4. The worst error in O’Leary’s piece is theological. She perpetuates Moberly’s notion that gay men, having missed out on the love of their fathers during childhood, should now look to Jesus or God the Father as a replacement. Gay women, on the other hand, should look to Mary as the mother-figure whose absence during childhood was the apparent cause of their lesbianism. The only possible reaction that a thoughtful and intelligent person could have with such ridiculous assertions is, “Huh?? Are you kidding me??” To suggest that a strong relationship with God the Father or the Blessed Mother will make gay people straight is not only absurd, but is also insulting to the millions of gay men and women who take their faith seriously and have strong and devout spiritual lives. This O’Leary/Moberly assertion is an example of the strange places one ends up when the starting point is wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the long-abandoned Freudian notion that the behavior of parents causes their children’s sexual orientation.

The Pilot does its readers a tremendous disservice by publishing the writings of someone who seems not to know the difference between science and science fiction. While O’Leary’s commentary did nothing to clarify confusion, it did a wonderful job of perpetuating ignorance. I pray that if The Pilot wishes to inform its readers on these issues from the perspective of science, it would engage the services of someone who knows what he/she is talking about.

Sincerely,

Of all days throughout the year, today — Good Friday — is a day especially sacred to those who claim the name of “Christian.” It is not only sacred, but somber; a day that calls modern-day followers of Jesus, the Christ, away from the busy-ness of life and into a silence of prayerful reflection, spending at least some time this day meditating on the core mysteries of Christian faith.

As I was waking up this morning, listening to the quiet of the pre-dawn night and conscious of what day it was I was awaking to, I thought how the popular use and understanding of that appellation — Christian — has come so far from its fundamental meaning.

Christianity is a credal faith; the question, “what do Christians believe?” is easy to answer. We have a text that we can point to; a text we can recite and say “this is what we believe.” The ancient Nicene Creed beautifully and poetically identifies those “sine qua non” beliefs of Christianity.

In our own day, “Christian” is all-too often used in a partisan political context, as an adjective to describe large sections of the political Right, or as part of the name of coalitions or political action committees.

An old hymn proclaims, “they will know we are Christians by our love.” Today, of all days, Christians everywhere should ask ourselves if this is true. Is love the defining character or quality of Christianity today? Is love, especially the self-emptying love of Christ on the Cross, what others think of first when they hear “Christian” today? Is the agapaic love of Jesus the preeminent quality of our own lives, the way those with whom we live and work would characterize us?

Some so-called Christians claim it is their right to be intolerant of homosexuals, believing (mistakenly) that condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality are essential elements of Christian belief; it is not. These fundamentalists should take these sacred days of the Christian Holy Week and become re-acquainted with their Bibles, especially the Gospels. There they will find someone named Jesus preaching values of justice, forgiveness, inclusion, and charity.

“Think how marginalized racists are,” said [Christian activist Gregory S.] Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. “If we don’t address this now, it will only get worse.”

I may be off base, but I don’t think fighting for the right not to be marginalized is what should be of concern to racists; their racism should be.

Similarly, the intolerants should be concerned not about being marginalized for their views, but should re-think whether their intolerance of others is truly an example of What Jesus Would Do!

Yesterday, D.C. joined other cities around the country in playing host to marches and rallies in support of comprehensive immigration reform.

I agree with those who say the U.S. needs to have a better plan to deal justly and fairly with those millions of people, mostly from Mexico, who are here (pick your term)… “illegally,” “undocumented,” “without papers.” There are plenty of good ideas (and a few very bad ones) about how to address these issues that affect so many facets of American society.

Addressing the problem here, however, does precious little to address the problem there … and by there, I mean Mexico. Conservatively, 40% of Mexicans live in poverty; is it any wonder they want to flee? Debate and discussion about guest worker programs and paths to citizenship and border control … these are all good and healthy discussions that Americans and elected leaders should be having. But these issues are only secondary to the primary problem of Mexico’s long-standing economic and social ills.

I don’t know enough about Mexico even to guess at what the answers might be. But I do know enough about logic that dealing with an effect without addressing its cause does precious little to bring about lasting change.